Archive for April, 2016

So, I’ve managed to get my hands on some new Intel Processors to test in the HPE ProLiant Microserver Gen8, now supported and the microcode has been updated in the latest BIOS as reported in this blog here, I’ve got two of the following

Is this an Intel conspiracy, the Intel ARK used to show it as supported, but later it has now been changed, to No. Is this to encourage people to purchase a Xeon which supports ECC, or did Intel find a support issue?

I’ve recently managed to get hold of a HPE ProLiant Microserver Gen8 server, to test and maybe eventually replace my aging HP ProLiant Microserver N36L’s see here. I cannot believe it’s been almost 5 years since, I purchased my cluster of N36L to run VMware vSphere.

The HPE ProLiant Microserver Gen8 has been around for some time now, and represents good value for money, and is closer specification to the original ProLiant range than the previous Microserver offerings, e.g. iLo4 support, dual network interfaces, ECC ram support, and a socketed Intel 1155 processor socket.

Four different processor models of the HPE ProLiant Microserver Gen8 are available direct from HP resellers. See the quick specs here.

A bit late to the party, a close friend and my brother suggested I watch Breaking Bad, and then Better Call Saul, so I’ve just finished watching all 5 Seasons of Breaking Bad, and 2 Seasons of Better Call Saul, that’s approximately 3 days of Box Set viewing!

And coincidently, Better Caul Saul, Season 2 has just aired and finished!

•Online acceptance of the Master Software Beta Test Agreement will be required prior to visiting the Private Beta Community

•Install beta software within 3 days of receiving access to the beta product

•Provide feedback within the first 4 weeks of the beta program

•Submit Support Requests for bugs, issues and feature requests

•Complete surveys and beta test assignments

•Participate in the private beta discussion forum and conference calls

vSphere Beta Program Overview

We are excited to announce the upcoming VMware vSphere Beta Program. This program enables participants to help define the direction of the most widely adopted industry-leading virtualization platform. Folks who want to participate in the program can now indicate their interest by filling out this simple form. The vSphere team will grant access to the program to selected candidates in stages. This vSphere Beta Program leverages a private Beta community to download software and share information. We will provide discussion forums, webinars, and service requests to enable you to share your feedback with us.

You can expect to download, install, and test vSphere Beta software in your environment or get invited to try new features in a VMware hosted environment. All testing is free-form and we encourage you to use our software in ways that interest you. This will provide us with valuable insight into how you use vSphere in real-world conditions and with real-world test cases, enabling us to better align our product with your business needs.

Some of the many reasons to participate in this beta opportunity:

•Receive early access to the vSphere Beta products

•Interact with the vSphere Beta team consisting of Product Managers, Engineers, Technical Support, and Technical Writers

Here is the replacement processor for my HP ProLiant MicroServer Gen8. It has taken me a while to track this one down. It has a TDP of only 17 watts, compared to the stock Intel Celeron G1610T, which has a TDP of 35 watts.

So in today’s, crude and experimental research I thought I would connect all our VMware vSphere Hypervisors (ESXi 5.5 build 1892794) to a NFS datastore presented to the ESXi Hosts from a Synology NAS, and we’ll try the following tests

I deployed a small Windows 7 template, onto the NFS datastore as follows

No Cache Enabled – 3 minutes 27 seconds to deploy

Read and Write Cache Enabled – 2 minutes and 40 seconds to deploy.

Time for some more testing – The template deployed to the datastore was converted to a virtual machine, and the following tests were performed using CrystalDiskMark 5.1.2 in the virtual machine.

NFS Exported volume No SSD Cache on the Synology NAS.

NFS Exported volume Read and Write SSD Cache on the Synology NAS.

NFS Exported volume Read only SSD Cache on the Synology NAS.

Some a bunch of very confusing results! And every time I test the results are similar.

In my recent article comparing the performance of the addition of a Read and Write SSD Cache to a volume on a Synology NAS, I started to look in detail at whether this cache benefits any other services on a Synology NAS running DSM 5.2.

In this experiment I’m looking at the Plex Media Server, and I’ve setup two identical Synology NAS, running DSM 5.2 Build 5644 Update 5, both with Plex Media Server 0.9.15.2.1663, both are streaming the same 1080P Blue Ray movie to the same Plex client via WiFi, at the same time. The first NAS has no cache, the second NAS has 120GB of read and write cache, and these are the results.

The second NAS with the read and write cache enabled shows, lower Disk Utilization 1% compared to 5%.

Again you can see here, 6% (no cache), 1% (cache)

The same stats from both NAS, No cache and cache enabled, what is interesting is the CPU load results are lower on the cache enabled version!

Recently in DSM, a new SSD cache option is available, which allows you to create a read or write cache with 1 or 2 SSD devices respectively.

Here are some results, which I’ve graphed

In my very quick and crude tests, I could see an improvement in Writing to the NAS, which doubles in performance. Read speed is very similar, and the cache was “warmed-up” before testing.

And here’s a video of the new Synology SSD Cache Read Hit Rate graphic, which looks a little graphic equalizer, from the 70-80s, so I’ve dropped a music track in the background! I thought it only right to over-flange (distort!) the track, so you may want to turn down your volume!

Spot the difference between these two White on Green Glossy Laminuated TZ-735 Brother P-Touch tapes?

The one on the right costs £14.00, and the one on the left costs £3.85, both including delivery.

What I had a chuckle about is the compatible tape is correct stating it’s 0.47 inch, and not 1/2 inch, if you work out what 12mm is in inches!

Both function correctly in the two Brother P-Touch label printers I have tested, but the one on the left is marked as P-Touch compatible, it’s not a genuine Brother product, and manufactured in China. Readily available from eBay, or other online stockists!

I was going to throw my P-Touch label printer in the bin, because the cost of replacement tapes was so expensive!

I’ve just taken delivery, of four of these cartridges, at approx. £10 – 6mm,9mm,12mm and all work as expected, this would have cost four times this amount for the Brother original parts! – Direct from China, including packaging and posting, arrived well packed, signed for delivery and within 7 days excluding weekend.